Picking up a copy of the English-language Daily Star in Beirut this summer, I was struck by the lead story. A photo of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, flanked by his Arab counterparts, accompanied this huge headline: "Arab Nations Applaud Turkey's Erdogan for Tough Stand on Israel."
What a truly pitiful sight it was.
What is it about the psyche of Arab leaders and nationals that prevents them from making the same "stand," I wondered?
In part, just as an observer, it is clear to me that there is still a strong stench of "defeatism" that lingers heavily in the air around much of the Arab Mideast -- a negativity that has been canonized in works of literature and has become deeply embedded in Arab public discourse, including commentary, mass media -- and even academic conferences, where more critical thinking should prevail.
Knowing that the Arabs are busy creating their own cages, the increasingly right-wing and militant Israeli political body seems to eke out its latest appalling policies a little at a time to train us collectively to accept a new bar for bad behavior. Arabs protest in one loud shout, then defeatedly scurry back to an ever-shrinking existence.
Non-Arab Turkey and Iran
This condition does not afflict the Iranians or the Turks. Innovative and proud in the face of western attempts to isolate it, and US/Israeli attempts to define it, Iran has managed to forge its own path based on perceived national interests, and churns out world-class achievements in many fields:
A 2010 Canadian report on "geo-political shift in knowledge creation" claims scientific output has grown 11 times faster in Iran than the world average, faster than any other country (Turkey ranks high in the data, too). Progress in science, medicine and technology outpaces most developing nations -- whether in AIDS research, nanotechnology, biotechnology, genetics, nuclear technology or aerospace. Iran's remarkable film industry generates award-winning art films the world around -- in Venice, Cannes and Toronto. The Islamic Republic of Iran has crafted such a creative healthcare system to deal with critical problems like infant and maternal mortality that the state of Mississippi has requested special permission from the US Department of State to bring in Iranian experts to teach them how to do the same. When sanctions are slapped on Tehran, Iranian entrepreneurs manufacture the banned goods themselves. When the Afghani and Pakistani drug trade seems to overwhelm Iran's borders, the Islamist government shrugs off religious myopia and sets up needle exchange programs, free methadone prescriptions, and the distribution of condoms to promote safe sex. Proactive, self-preserving behaviors serving a self-defined national interest -- not something you see often in the Arab world.
Turkey defies all stereotypes as a Muslim-majority country on the edge of the Middle East. A staunchly secular nation as defined by its constitution, it has nevertheless demonstrated genuine democracy by allowing the participation of a progressive, Islamist-leaning political party. It is ironic that this party has been the one to make the groundbreaking, democratizing improvements in its political structures to facilitate its bid to join the EU, an effort backed by Washington. Turkey is as much at ease with the US, Russia and China as it is with Iran, Brazil and India, and has redefined the possibilities of global diplomacy as it inserts itself proactively into power-brokering conflicts the world around. A major tourist destination and now a real economic hub in the various regions it borders, Turkey too has carved its own destiny, independent of others, yet in tight cooperation with all.
So what happened to the Arabs? Is it the use of the collective term "Arab" that waters down this ethnic group's possibilities? Surely if they were only defined as Algerians, Lebanese, Tunisians, Kuwaitis, Jordanians, it would be easier to break out of a pack malaise? Or do they have to get even smaller -- Bedouins, Hashemites, Christians, Druze, Alawites, etc.?
Assassinated Lebanese journalist Samir Kassir once wrote that Arabs are "haunted by a sense of powerlessness":
Powerless to be what you think you should be. Powerless to act to affirm your existence in the face of the Other who denies your right to exist, despises you and has once again reasserted his domination over you. Powerless to suppress the feeling that you are no more than a lowly pawn on the global chessboard even as the game is being played in your backyard.
And this is the crux of the matter. The Arab has been defined by the Other. So successfully in fact, that most Arabs speak amongst themselves using a narrative that has been constructed by others, external to the region.
To be sure, there is a local defeatist industry that has sprung up organically from lost wars, corrupt systems and bad leadership, but it is perpetuated by the impotence that comes from this Other narrative.
What do I mean? Let's focus on the discourse surrounding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a prime example:
Language to Tame and Control
The United States and Israel have created the global discourse on this longstanding and contentious dispute. They have set stringent parameters that grow increasingly narrow regarding the content and direction of this debate. And anything discussed outside the set parameters has, until recently, widely been viewed as unrealistic, unproductive and even subversive.
Participation in the debate is limited only to those who prescribe to the tenets of the discourse -- in this case, it is the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas, the Jordanians, Egyptians, Saudis, and a smattering of other "defeatist" Arab leaders who are happy to serve our interests over theirs.
These tenets include the acceptance of Israel, its regional hegemony and its qualitative military edge, acceptance of the shaky logic upon which the Jewish state's claim to Palestine is based, and acceptance of the inclusions and exclusion of certain regional parties, movements and governments in any solution to the conflict.
Words are the Building Blocks of Psychology
The language parameters that come into play to shape the discourse are largely based on these three tenets, although undoubtedly there are others. Words like dove, hawk, militant, extremist, moderates, terrorists, Islamo-fascists, rejectionists, existential threat, holocaust-denier, mad mullah determine the participation of solution partners -- and are capable of instantly excluding others.
Then there is the language that preserves "Israel's Right To Exist" unquestioningly: anything that invokes the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and the myths about historic Jewish rights to the land described as Eretz Yisrael. This language seeks not only to ensure that a Jewish connection to Palestine remains unquestioned, but importantly, seeks to punish and marginalize those who tackle the legitimacy of this modern colonial-settler experiment.
And finally, there is the language that suggests Israel's "value" to the world: Americans often cite "common" or "shared" values, or "Judeo-Christian" values, the "only democracy in the Middle East," a bulwark against Islamism (which increasingly addresses all Muslims), tyranny, autocratic rulers and native savagery -- for which many other terms and nefarious concepts are invoked, i.e., suicide-bombers, Palestinian lack of value for life, willingness to sacrifice their children, human rights violations rampant in the Arab and Islamic worlds, etc.
Further to these three main areas where parameters have been effectively set, there are concepts and language that have been institutionalized through international agreements and conditions determined by the "powers that be." Whether it is refusing to deal with parties who do not accept Israel, Quartet principles, renunciation of violence -- or -- the stream of US-brokered agreements starting from Madrid to Oslo, Annapolis and so forth -- these concepts create further hurdles that seem impossible to counter, so often are they repeated in Washington, Tel Aviv, London, Paris, Riyadh, Cairo, Amman and elsewhere.
In effect, the US, Israel and a small, largely powerless coterie of others have created insurmountable parameters in dealing with the Palestinian-Israel issue within the international arena. Yes, that means no peace ever, just a pressure-free Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. This is the only "game" in town.
But that is only so long as this narrative is allowed to continue.
The New Middle East
And suddenly that change is here. The handful of Arabs that have raised a new vocabulary are a mixed lot, with different political leanings, historical experiences and religious traditions. But they bring with them a psychology of potential -- or as we may call it, the "audacity of hope" -- the first time since the nationalist leadership of Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser that the views of influential Arab leaders actually resonate with the public masses.
It is the first transformative post-Cold War shift the region has seen in its centers of influence and power. A development almost entirely lost on think tankers and policy wonks in Washington -- and within the Middle East's old guard who cling to yesterday's narratives for their very legitimacy.
From Qatar to Hezbollah to Syria, we are now seeing a language of "pride" -- a desire to forge a new narrative of possibilities. These entities are not complaining about the status quo -- economic, political, social stagnation -- they are offering solutions.
And not grandiose, hard to live up to remedies, but incremental, one-foot-in-front-of-the-other problem busters. They are crossing borders to solicit assistance, utilizing public and private diplomacy to characterize their new direction, and employing collective strategies to strengthen their hand.
Trade is increasing with "value" partners -- like-minded nations interested in creating clout through commerce and broadening political independence through market diversification.
Take a look at Qatar. A tiny Arab nation in the Persian Gulf with a native population of less than 300,000 and huge gas reserves, Doha has done the unthinkable. The largest US military base in the region is stationed there alongside arguably the least censored major media outlet in both the East and West, Al Jazeera -- and it will be hosting the first World Cup in the entire Middle East in 2022. Outpacing staunch US ally Saudi Arabia in leaps and bounds, the Qataris have adopted women's suffrage, introduced a new Constitution, established education as a cornerstone of their growth strategy (Georgetown University and Cornell now have campuses there), are diversifying their economy well beyond dependency on energy resources, and even opened limited relations with Israel until the Gaza war put a swift end to that goodwill gesture. A homegrown vision and a determination to act in its own interest -- not some fantasy, regional, brotherhood lockstep -- is what drives Qatar and others who embrace new narratives in the Middle East.
The narratives now taking hold in the region will create innovative, homegrown solutions to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broken governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, arms control, nuclear proliferation, Salafist extremism, water rights, human rights, representative government, refugee crises, economic growth, border issues and other impediments to real progress.
It was not Washington's input that was necessary to form governments in Lebanon and Iraq after elections -- the deals were struck with the assistance of Riyadh, Damascus and Tehran. And it will not be the State Department that will ultimately solve the Palestine-Israeli issue either. I predict an entirely homegrown solution to that enduring conflict -- the idea will come from the region, if not the enforcing of it.
Importantly, the new narratives have opened up "possibilities" already. We are seeing this in Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain recently -- populations suddenly deciding that they will strive for change; that the status quo has not served them well. Local corruption and economic, political and social decay are the root causes of this popular dissent, but it would be foolish not to recognize that these have been fueled by a new "chutzpah" derived from watching uncensored news (Al Jazeera) for the first time -- or bursting with pride at a perceived Israeli loss against Hezbollah in 2006 -- or frankly, just watching Turkey and Iran curb external hegemonic aspirations in the region. These events have inspired pride and honor in a part of the world that values these attributes highly.
This Mideast's new centers of influence are progressive ones. Yet we still quite deliberately cast them as militant, destabilizing, worrisome. They may threaten our exclusive hegemony, but if our goal still remains access to resources, we are better served by befriending and cooperating with the region's newest power brokers, than by alienating them at a time when our stock is falling globally.
The bottom line is that these regional actors are the only ones that can help preserve the peace and open up markets in the Middle East. If Washington does not recognize these developments, the new regional narrative will forge ahead without us, and we will be excluded until we learn some respect.
Become a Facebook fan of Sharmine Narwani.
Follow Sharmine Narwani on Twitter: www.twitter.com/snarwani
Sabria Jawhar: The Violent Rhetoric of Saudi Arabia's Imams
Sami Moubayed: The Alexandria Bombing: Could it Happen in Syria?
Thank you Prof. Narwani for this. It was painful to read, only a sobering sign of its relevance.
Some 155 university and college faculty members have signed a petition calling for an academic boycott of the Ariel University Center.
In the petition, the lecturers state their "unwillingness to take part in any type of academic activity taking place in the college operating in the settlement of Ariel." Furthermore, the petition states that "Ariel is not part of the sovereign state of Israel, and therefore it is impossible to require us to appear there."
Among the signatories are three Israel Prize laureates - professors Yehoshua Kolodny of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Benjamin Isaac of Tel Aviv University and Itamar Procaccia of the Weizmann Institute of Science.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-prize-laureates-join-academics-in-boycott-of-settlement-university-1.335954
Thank you Cynthia.
I've some difficulty with mega-narratives and mega-categories we're working with which doesn't at all take anything away from an often thoughtful discussion.
A great post-grad seminar, here, Prof. Narwani. I'll join. Thanks.
The solution is much simpler: destroy the Arab narrative of Israel. Then the Arabs will no longer be losers.
It is no longer a question of "beating them" - the eagerness is now there to finish the job and move on because Israel is such a regional albatross and the peace "game" detracts from all else (as you mention above).
Points to bear in mind.
Courts in Iran have a high degree of independence - the law is not codified or directed by central government. Thus there are often discrepancies between the application of the law from one district to another. The application of law does not always reflect Government policy. One should bear in mind the struggle the U.S. Federal Government had bringing Civil Rights to certain States last century in order to understand the situation in Iran.
Iran is being subjected to a covert campaign of destabilization - according to Seymour Hersh, the Bush administration invested four hundred million dollars in regime change prior to the last elections. If Mehrnehad was indeed a member of Jundallah, there would be little sympathy for him in Iran - he would be seen as an enemy agent.
Many of the horrendous stories in the Western media originate with the Mujahideen-e Khalq. Their version of the "homosexuals executed" neglected to inform that the condemned were executed for the homosexual rape and murder of a 12 year old. They are almost certainly responsible for Hafte Tir bombing in which seventy-three government officials were killed, including Chief Justice Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti and many other such atrocities.
see:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
Civil liberties, freedom of the press and human rights far outweigh scientific achievements.
In Iran, bloggers, journalists and those who speak out are executed. Espionage charges are thrown out at any enemies of the state, enabling the mullahs in power to stifle any dissenting voice.
Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel Laureate, had to flee Iran because of her criticism of the government's repression. She was critical of how Tehran treated the Baha'i minority, among other things.
There is the threat of sectarian warfare in every country where Iran has influence. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has threatened to turn its weapons on the Lebanese if they do not toe the line. A militant group has forced itself into the political sphere after the assassination of Rafik Hariri. The threat of civil war looms in Lebanon. As it does in Iraq and Yemen.
Iran has a historic role to play, but not with the Mullahs in power ...
Turkey has in the past 30 years played a bloody game with its Kurdish citizenry in the northeast. And its record on Armenia is not encouraging. Furthermore, the army has threatened to step in if it feels secularism is threatened. The trial of military officers who sought a violent overthrow of what they saw as the "Islamist" government is a point in case.
The Mideast has to be ALLOWED to evolve, make it's own mistakes - which means they need to be able to elect their own leaders. We do not allow them that privilege in many instances in our support for regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, etc. In other places, we actively push for regime change or destruction of political parties - and then are surprised when they hunker down and get mean.
"Iran has a historic role to play, but not with the mullahs in power..."
Typical "Other" narrative there. Who are you or I to decide if mullahs can or should be in power? Polls taken throughout the region (Pew, Brookings, Gallup, etc.) suggest that if elections were held in many Mideast states, you would have an Islamist sweep. As a secular person, I would rather that did not happen, but it is not my call, and I don't oppose it, because THEY have to make their mistakes and come out the other side.
If left alone, in 25 years the Middle East will consist of states with Islamist, secular, conservative or liberal governments. Arabs cannot be lumped together as one - these are 22 individual nation states and they will each be different.
I agree, in that, the Middle East is all too often viewed as one monolithic bloc of nations, i.e. all Arab, all Muslim. This is not the case, of course. There are different countries, with different circumstance, different civil societies, some more secular, others more conservative, some not Arab at all, etc.
The point is, just like Latin America was FINALLY (for the most part lets say) allowed to go through its own growing pains, so too must the Middle East. But this comes from less interference, not more from the Western world. The West, in general, is in dire need of retraining about the dynamics of the Middle East. I honestly think a lot of what the West does is due to sheer ignorance of Middle Eastern societies ("they'll greet us with flowers..." remember that one?!).
It should also be pointed out, however, that the fulcrum on which the Middle East turns rests on the question of Palestine. Opinion polls across the region consistently have this issue ranked in the top 3 most important issues among citizens (of Arab countries). This, in itself should be incentive enough for the US to resolve the problem -- a stable Middle East -- but as is clear to see, the US is unable, or unwilling to do so.
Sharmine had made a strong case about the methods western propaganda machine have used to even change Arabs' prescription of the reality in favour of Israel.
What is the propose of your post? To hammer is propaganda in our heads and wipe out the new perspective that Sharmine has provided to get closer to the reality.
If the subject matter is technological advancement then Sharmine is right and Turkey and Iran has the highest technological advancement in the last ten years.
If the subject matter is human right violation, then we should discuss Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, UAE, Bahrain etc here becasue Iran is one the more democratic countries in the ME.
But the subject matter is not any of the above, the subject matter is how propaganda is operating and brain washing people in such a way that their conscious and subconscious is effected by it.
If we wanted to hear propaganda we would go to Fox News, so stop propagate the same old propaganda here.
Read the article again, it looks that you did not get it.
Should the ME be left alone to determine its own destiny and make its own mistakes? Absolutely.
But my comment did not even mention that; my comment neither supported nor condemned interventionism in the Middle East. In fact, I did not mention the West or US at all.
The question is why you believe I did.
Is everyone who raises the issue of human rights going to be branded a Western propagandist? That is very worrying.
If the Middle East is to be allowed to EVOLVE as you highlight, Sharmine, and as Karim banned said "find new ideas, perspective and most important of all a reflection of the reality" then the societies there must be courageous enough to discuss the difficult points
They are common in Turkey, Iran and Arab countries.
An Arab malaise? Oh for sure. I have used that term since the Beirut Arab League meeting of 2002.
To move forward, our societies must refrain from branding discourse as Western Propaganda, or accusing someone of being a spy, or other such self-defeating descriptions. These are divisive and color the discussion.
I wrote an article years ago calling for a truth and reconciliation commission for Iraq. South Africa tried several times to convince the Iraqi government for the need of such an enterprise. The Iraqis refused.
When you look below the cliche headlines of what the Washington elite are doing one gets a better picture of what is going on.
Casting off the shackles of western allies false perceptions of the Middle Eastern Arab peoples sentiments begins in earnest by changing the "rules of engagement" so to speak and speaking in the Arabs true voice and not allowing western induced perceptions to cloud Arab perceptions of self.
The Arab street is a diverse avenue of the arts that shows it color, shape, genre motif and tone in many ways through in opening in the gates of expression from Al Jazeera, Palestinian Mothers, Gaza mom websites, to right here in the annals of Huffpost, and indeed the new sense of vitality of expression comes through is just that, very interesting, and colorful, rich in spirit, texture and vibrant in sound, film, art music and social variety .
Arab womens expressions from Hijab to the high fashion plates of Arab" haute couture "are worth their proverbial weights in gold, gemstones of every conceivable color and faceted brilliance shine forth from the writings ,art, music and hard bitten news expressions that cast off all former delusions and make it known in clear terms that Arabs will be speaking for themselves and thankfully so from now forward, especially in western venues and media.
Sharmine Narwani speaks for herself and for her people, thank you very much and such as one commands our attention!
I hope my Arab brothers soon get their voices back and we all speak together loudly and clearly against this wave of new colonialism in ME.
F&F
Turkey is poised to become the economic center of the ME and the energy hub for Europe. Israel and the US (it feels almost redundant, doesn't it?) will continue to do it's best to slow Turkey down and demand obedience but those days are over-Iraq, Afghanistan, Banking collapse...
That's really all I can say about this article. I had to read junk for many years until finally someone wrote a coherent article describing the big picture and where things are going in the ME. This article should be mandatory reading for Hillary AIPAC Clinton.